Ms. Childs asked if the South Hills Study criteria would be codified. Ms. Bishow said no; the code <br />called for consistency with refinement plans. Staff relied on the developer to go to the refinement plan <br />to avoid the need to amend the code when refinement plans were amended. Ms. Childs suggested that <br />staff consider how the criteria in the draft code differed from the criteria in the South Hills Study <br />because there may be some situations where what was most important was what was required by the <br />South Hills Study. <br />Ms. Bishow said that staff would consider the commission's input and revise the (C) and (D). <br />Mr. Conrad stressed the importance of the review process to achieving the City's goals. He agreed <br />with Ms. Wojahn regarding the importance of predevelopment conferences and wondered if that <br />included staff accompanying developers on site visits. Responding to a request for direction from Ms. <br />Bishow, the commission agreed it wished to include preapplication conferences as a PUD requirement. <br />Ms. Bishow reviewed other changes proposed by staff to Section 9.6420. <br />Mr. Jacobson questioned the inclusion of (J), requiring that a project comply with all applicable <br />portions of the Land Use Code, as a criteria. He suggested that it be moved to another location in the <br />PUD section as a statement of fact. Ms. Childs said she understood the staff intent, but pointed out it <br />would require staff to develop findings of compliance. Ms. Bishow said her focus was on what level of <br />weight the final PUD would have; should development proceed even if staff missed something? In <br />some cases, she said, staff does miss things. She suggested that if staff missed a lot line adjustment that <br />was not sufficiently significant to overturn a PUD approval. The PUD was a master plan designed to <br />produce a livable, functional, attractive environment. <br />Ms. Wojahn suggested that staff seek legal counsel on (J), as well as have discussion about the impact <br />of the review that would be required. <br />Mr. Conrad reminded the commission of its goal to streamline the code and said he agreed with Ms. <br />Bishow. He suggested that requiring predevelopment conferences would help to ensure the code <br />requirements were met. <br />Returning to the subject of compatibility, Ms. McMillan suggested that staff consider Growth <br />Management Study policy 9, which discusses the City's intent to mitigate the effects of high-density <br />development. <br />Referring to the application review process, Mr. Farley suggested that developers be required to invite <br />a member of the affected neighborhood group to participate in the process. <br />II. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION AND STAFF <br />A. Council Action <br />MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission May 10, 1999 Page 7 <br />0000786 7 <br />